TSR2 Conspiracy Theories

kernals12

Banned
upload_2018-4-4_19-58-0.png

The plane pictured above is one that arouses passion amongst British aircraft enthusiasts. It was designed in the 1960s to be used for dropping tactical nuclear warheads on Soviet troops advancing through West Germany. It was very fast and able to take off from short runways. in 1965, Britain's Labour government cancelled it and all the prototypes were destroyed. There are many who claim that Harold Wilson was strong armed by LBJ into cancelling a superior aircraft that could've damaged the American aircraft industry. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, so if anyone could bring up sensible reasons for this planes' cancellation, I'd like to hear it.
 
I have one, but I'm not convinced it was one of a number of factors and not even close to the most important.

Apparently the RAF wanted to use the plane to carry one or two 200kt nukes internally to be sure to guarantee the destruction of the targets they had in mind and achieve the performance standards specified. However in about 1962 the government directed that tactical nuclear bombs mustn't exceed some much smaller number, meaning that the TSR2 would have to carry 4 of these weapons, at least 2 externally, which reduced the performance of the aircraft. Not meeting the performance, but still costing a bomb, helped put a nail in its coffin.

Ironically this yield limitation was lifted after a few years and the British built some 50 WE177C nukes of 200kt using nuclear components of now redundant Polaris warheads, so the TSR2 would have been equipped with the weapon the RAF wanted in the first place!
 
In my *very* limited knowledge, I've read General Dynamics offered the Labour government some F-111s below cost to get them to kill the design? Since the US bought and adapted the UK Harrier design and McDonnell-Douglas made a ton of Harriers, I don't think that USAF is all that opposed to a NATO ally making a capable aircraft. I kind of wish they saw it to the end of development, even though it sounds like it would have been crazy expensive. The specs look kind of insane (in an awesome sense) for the late 1960s.
 

kernals12

Banned
MilitaryFactory.com has an extremely convenient tool that allows you to compare different aircraft. The F-111 was faster at sea level, had more range, and was lighter than the TSR-2. It proved itself well in Vietnam.
 
MilitaryFactory.com has an extremely convenient tool that allows you to compare different aircraft. The F-111 was faster at sea level, had more range, and was lighter than the TSR-2. It proved itself well in Vietnam.

Which model of F-111 because whilst an F model might match or just beat the performance figures of the TSR2 protoype it certainly wasnt lighter. The A to E series certainly werent faster at sea level they were barely supersonic at sea level with no weapons on board and when loaded up they were Mach 0.9 at best. The early 111s less thrust with the afterburners on than the TSR2 had running dry 36,500lb v 39,000lb. The TSR2s Olympus engines were later developed for use on the Concorde running at 30,000lb dry and 38,500lb afterburning.

The 111 certainly did well in Vietnam after they spent 3 years trying to stop them crashing due to control problems.

The TSR2 was a magnicent beast but it was too expensive for the RAF. The RAF realised it was to expensive and decided it wanted the cheaper ( x'D ) F111. Ask the RAAF how cheap that worked out.
 

kernals12

Banned
Which model of F-111 because whilst an F model might match or just beat the performance figures of the TSR2 protoype it certainly wasnt lighter. The A to E series certainly werent faster at sea level they were barely supersonic at sea level with no weapons on board and when loaded up they were Mach 0.9 at best. The early 111s less thrust with the afterburners on than the TSR2 had running dry 36,500lb v 39,000lb. The TSR2s Olympus engines were later developed for use on the Concorde running at 30,000lb dry and 38,500lb afterburning.

The 111 certainly did well in Vietnam after they spent 3 years trying to stop them crashing due to control problems.

The TSR2 was a magnicent beast but it was too expensive for the RAF. The RAF realised it was to expensive and decided it wanted the cheaper ( x'D ) F111. Ask the RAAF how cheap that worked out.
According to Wikipedia, it worked very well.
 
Harold Wilson was a Russian Mole who was ordered to bury the TSR2 by Moscow! The Craziest conspiracy theories are always the best.
 

kernals12

Banned
I've seen a common theme with lots of military aircraft. The ones that were not specifically optimized for one task were the ones that stood the test of time. Technology changes quickly and if planes aren't versatile, they run the risk of being obsolete before they get introduced.
 
The TSR2 was unfortunate to be under development when it was. It was cutting edge in many ways and new technology and new craft are of course expensive to start with. Budgetary constraints were hitting hard, inter-service conflicts over the budget didn't help, and the specification for the Air Staff Requirement, GOR 339, kept changing. That eventually became ASR343 which stretched the capability envelope too far. Low level height was reduced to 200ft, speed at altitude went from M1.7 to M2, ferry range was increased and the Load Classification went from 40 to 20 (ie concrete strips to grass strips for take-off and landings). All of these conspired to make development more and more protracted and costly. The loss of Empire, as former colonies gained independence further complicated matters as ferry routes could no longer be assured of the landing strips envisioned when TSR2 was first mooted, which pushed ferry ranges up to 2,500nm. From it's relatively narrow role at the start it became an aircraft that was required to do more and more within the same airframe. These moving goalposts pushed development costs higher and higher. Australia was looking to buy some, which would have aided costs somewhat but they then decided on the new TFX/F-111 instead, a move that didn't prove to be as cheap as they thought. Whilst I am a great fan of the 'vark, the early versions had their faults and were pushed into service too quickly. Later models are just fine though (of course the biggest problem really was saddling it with an F designation, as Fighter it ain't!).
An excellent source on this aircraft is the Osprey X-Planes book. As so often with government projects, it absorbed too much money for too long and was then cancelled.
 

kernals12

Banned
The TSR2 was unfortunate to be under development when it was. It was cutting edge in many ways and new technology and new craft are of course expensive to start with. Budgetary constraints were hitting hard, inter-service conflicts over the budget didn't help, and the specification for the Air Staff Requirement, GOR 339, kept changing. That eventually became ASR343 which stretched the capability envelope too far. Low level height was reduced to 200ft, speed at altitude went from M1.7 to M2, ferry range was increased and the Load Classification went from 40 to 20 (ie concrete strips to grass strips for take-off and landings). All of these conspired to make development more and more protracted and costly. The loss of Empire, as former colonies gained independence further complicated matters as ferry routes could no longer be assured of the landing strips envisioned when TSR2 was first mooted, which pushed ferry ranges up to 2,500nm. From it's relatively narrow role at the start it became an aircraft that was required to do more and more within the same airframe. These moving goalposts pushed development costs higher and higher. Australia was looking to buy some, which would have aided costs somewhat but they then decided on the new TFX/F-111 instead, a move that didn't prove to be as cheap as they thought. Whilst I am a great fan of the 'vark, the early versions had their faults and were pushed into service too quickly. Later models are just fine though (of course the biggest problem really was saddling it with an F designation, as Fighter it ain't!).
An excellent source on this aircraft is the Osprey X-Planes book. As so often with government projects, it absorbed too much money for too long and was then cancelled.
It seems to me if these changing requirements were such a problem while the plane was being designed, they would've made it obsolete quickly after it entered service.
 

longsword14

Banned
How about all the fighters that are currently in service and have continued to prove their worth?
The idea was that a new aircraft would be adapted, which hopefully would be a good thing over time. The F-35 has got nothing to do with the the desire to keep an edge over the rest of the planet.
Every modern aircraft has got a long developmental period.
the early versions had their faults and were pushed into service too quickly.
Interestingly, I just attended a lecture on structural fatigue, and in it was the F-111. It used to have a single piece forging (wing attach point) that could not be easily inspected. It often had micro-cracks that went without notice until a plane crashed badly.
edit: It is mentioned in wiki.
 
Just for some context. The most important thing is don't believe the haters, their all telling lies, and the RAAF was quoted US $150 mil for delivery in 1967 but the aircraft were delivered directly into storage and we didn't get them until 1973 at a cost of US $350 mil.

In 1963 the Australian Chief of Air Force Staff, Air Marshall Hancock did a world trip to evaluate potential replacements for the RAAF Canberra fleet. The mission evaluated aircraft to meet an interim requirement for an aircraft to be in service by 1966 and/or a more definitive requirement to be in service by 1969. The interim aircraft evaluated were the F4C, Mirage IV and RA5 Vigilante, the definitive aircraft the TSR2 and TFX (F111).

AM Hancock recommended the RAAF buy 36 RA5 Vigilante to meet the interim requirement, but the government was wary of buying an interim aircraft so in the end chose the TFX-F111 which was the best and cheaper than the TSR2.
 

Attachments

  • post-6-1326629195.jpg
    post-6-1326629195.jpg
    159.2 KB · Views: 149
Last edited:
How about all the fighters that are currently in service and have continued to prove their worth?

How long do you think the current designs can be sustained without massive issues (ie basically something like the "upgrade from Hornet to Superhornet" actually being nearly a new aircraft. While there are tweaks and upgrades left in say the 15/18/Typhoon there are limits to those.

The 35 has plenty of issues and will take time to work up (like all Fighter programs) but there's not much else in town for LO aircraft and nothing for the STVOL that many non USN navies are looking at. I mean short of the RN gutting their new carriers it's 35B as the only choice.
 
Quoted from the British Cold War Facts and Figures thread by @NOMISYRRUC

Spey Phantom was estimated to cost £25 million to develop, but ended up costing £100 million and the production cost was double that of a standard Phantom because of the British engine and other British components that replaced other parts of the aircraft. And there is also the money spent on the P1154 and HS681 before cancellation. That's about £45 million.

At the time of cancellation TSR2 was expected to cost £780 million, that is £270 million R&D including 9 prototypes and £510 million for the production of 9 pre-production and 141 production aircraft. £125 million had actually been spent and £70 million was cancellation charges, which is where the £195 million comes from. However, its possible that it would have cost even more than that due to more cost overruns and inflation. By comparison (and according to Charles Gardner's history of BAC):

£125 million for 50 F-111K (but had escalated to £425 million by 1968 and IIRC the RAAF F-111Cs cost 3½ times more than the original price)
£170 million for the UK share of AFVG (£2.5 million spent by the time the French pulled out according to Derek Wood in Project Cancelled).
£170 million for 100 AFVG at £1.7 million each (which was half the projected production cost of a TSR2 in 1965)

£445 million Total, which is an impressive saving of £335 million, but once the £195 million already spent on TSR2 is deducted its only £140 million. Plus the R&D and production costs for AFVG were escalating at cancellation too.

At the time of cancellation 50 aircraft had been ordered, consisting of the 9 prototypes, 11 pre-production aircraft and 30 production aircraft, of which 19 had been completed or were under construction. One aircraft was flying, one was ready to fly, the third was scheduled to fly in May 1965 and the next 6 were to follow at intervals of 2 months from July 1965 to May 1966. IIRC 6 pre-production aircraft were to be delivered to the A&AEE for service trials by the end of 1966 with the Certificate of Airworthiness release planned for the middle of 1967. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that the schedule would have been met, but the F-111Ks would probably been delivered several years late too if the Australian F-111 purchase is anything to go by.

One nitpick, the RAAF didn't pay 3 1/2 times as much, it was 2 1/3 times as much US$150m to $US350m.
 
Top